Robot Wars Wiki talk:Style Guide
Battle Reports That thing about the term "Eliminator" isn't strictly true. So far we've been using the names that were used on the show itself when introducing the battles. Series 3 used Round 1, Round 2 and Round 3. Series 4 and 5 used Eliminators, Semi-Finals and Final. Series 6 and 7 used Battles 1-4 and Final, but in order to group the first two rounds properly we refer to them as Round 1 and Round 2. That's the real reason the terms change from series to series. Christophee (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Maybe we should change it then. I personally like the idea of it being called an eliminator, as it 'eliminates' one or two robots and the rest go through. A Round is what I consider to be a one-on-one, or a melee where only one robot goes through. Just keep the consistency. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 02:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC) :I personally like it the way it is, and using the term "Round 2" for the second round when there is no round called "Round 1" just looks rubbish in my opinion. I think we should stick to the way it was on the show, or else make it the same for every series (I think Round 1, Round 2, Final would be the best way if we were doing that). It's obviously still a round no matter how many robots get eliminated so there's no need to change it. Christophee (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC) General Grammar I've decided to create a section for grammatical errors that seem to pop up a lot on this wiki - I'm guilty of a lot of these myself, so don't think my intention is to single anyone out. All of this section is applicable to your writing outside the Wiki too, hopefully it will be useful. If anyone has any suggestions for additions, please post them here (only recurring issues that don't single out a specific person, please). 'RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 16:55, March 16, 2012 (UTC) :Capital letters for an obvious start, I've corrected two people's posts that lacked capitals, out of potentially more. It's something that is the greatest thing since sliced bread, yet this has cropped up fairly regularly now. Personally I'm not getting tired of correcting these, correcting grammar was my main source of editing as an IP before those wacky and downright insulting edit summaries started appearing, and I'm shameful enough to admit that. STORM II 17:02, March 16, 2012 (UTC) ::To follow on from the first point in the section, adding full stops to the end of trivia, that could go on the trivia section instead, if that's more fitting. Datovidny (talk) 17:54, March 16, 2012 (UTC) :::Both valid points, but I'm really looking for things that are more glaringly wrong, errors that people consciously make. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 18:07, March 16, 2012 (UTC) Judges' Decision I do have one suggestion now, that every time a battle goes to the judges, that people put judges' decision, rather than judge's decision. Judge's decision implies that only one judge is making the decision. I see this crop up many a time, and it irritates me. If you don't think this is worthwhile putting in the Style Guide, then fine. Datovidny (talk) 15:52, May 27, 2012 (UTC) :I agree that it should be like that, and I will add it in (assuming it hasn't already been done). Christophee (talk) 14:38, May 28, 2012 (UTC) Proposal: No Foregone Conclusions in the Robot History It's easiest to just explain this with an example of what I think doesn't belong: Big Nipper's first match was against the future champion Razer. It's basically saying that Big Nipper lost the match, else Razer would not be eventual champion. I know that we don't care about spoilers, but it's too defeatist and a poor way of telling the story, to me it reads Big Nipper lost to Razer. The robots charged at each other and Big Nipper sheared off a wing. It's ok to say that it had a difficult match, or even a death sentence, but make it a good narrative and leave some ambiguity. Let me know what you think of this. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 00:06, January 8, 2013 (UTC) :I agree, its not a fair light to shine on the world's good, but less successful robots. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 06:09, January 8, 2013 (UTC) ::I also don't like the "brutal defeats" or other such references. Sure, they were defeated in battle, but we don't know enough about what happened to make such defeatist claims even if they weren't relentlessly negative. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 06:12, January 8, 2013 (UTC) :::May I extend this to excessive negativity in the articles of the less successful robots? I see it now and then and it ticks me off. Matt Talk to me 07:39, January 8, 2013 (UTC) :If it can be worded better then by all means it should be. After all, in your example, Razer could easily have been described as the World Champion, since it had won that at the time. Although I don't think that would matter too much if it was at the end of the article. For example, Ansgar's Series 7 history states that "Storm 2, who would go on to win the World Championship, eventually pushed Ansgar into the pit", or something along those lines. As this was at the end of the paragraph, I think that is OK. CrashBash (talk) 18:01, January 8, 2013 (UTC) ::That's not particularly relevant to the Ansgar page though. Personally I would leave it out. Christophee (talk) 18:43, January 8, 2013 (UTC) :::Well, I suppose not, I just thought since it wasn't at the beginning, it wouldn't be that bad, that's all. CrashBash (talk) 19:26, January 8, 2013 (UTC) ::::The point of lower performing robot pages is not to glorify their opponents. I think Crash's example of Ansgar and Storm 2 is the perfect example of what not to include, and though I do see his point about it being at the end of the article, it doesn't add that much to Ansgar's article. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 21:40, January 8, 2013 (UTC) The contentious "it not they" issue If we are going to be grammar nazis about referring to robots as "it" instead of "they," then we need better reasoning, which I have taken the liberty of drafting. From now on, when a new user calls Firestorm a "they," tell them '"They" is only used as gender-neutral-singular pronoun for sentient beings, which the competitors are not considered to be." You can use your own words to better suit your voice, but if you want to just use that verbatim, feel free. Without naming any names, it's disrespectful to respond to a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They not-completely-outdated grammatical error with something like "Firestorm wasn't a clusterbot." You are implying that they can't distinguish between the numbers one and two, which is not a flattering implication. Please take heed of this for the sake of peacekeeping and civility. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 06:22, August 30, 2014 (UTC) :What about Clusterbots then? There is more than one robot and they might have different names for each half/third (which all but Gemini and Legion have different names for each half/third). Sam (BAZINGA) 20:42, August 30, 2014 (UTC) ::Well of course, multiples are "they." I thought that was too obvious to be worth including. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 21:33, August 30, 2014 (UTC) :::You don't need to beat around the bush, you and I both know only I ever made comments like those. Yes, it is shameful looking back. CrashBash (talk) 22:28, August 30, 2014 (UTC) Addendum to stance on Roman Numerals "For the sakes of consistency, all robots should use standard numbers instead of Roman Numerals on articles in almost every instance, but a single line that states a team's use of Roman Numerals in their robot's name may be used on a robot's article, if it is explicitly clear that this is the team's preference (e.g. Thermidor II is seen on Team Lobster's shirts, Reactor II is printed onto the robot)" This is the stance that has been used in the absence of TG, and belongs in the Style Guide. It's necessary because it helps us explain to roboteers why we ignore their use of Roman Numerals, and is also pivotal to Tantrum, which is not actually called "T2", but in fact "T II", with a space in the middle. If we don't have this addendum, we'll have no choice but to change every instance to "T 2". Anyone opposed? [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast']][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 00:47, October 24, 2016 (UTC) :To be clear, I oppose firmly. The current stance is fine to explain why we ignore their use of roman numerals - they are used interchangeably (teams like Storm 2 and Firestorm clearly use them interchangebly) and so we picked one and stuck with it. No one is going to tell them roman numerals are wrong to use, but I'm strongly opposed to the Wiki being dotted with inconsistent formats. What happens if the Americans want robots spelled with American spelling? We've got to defend consistency. If there is a roboteer who feel extremely strongly about it, then I'll happily talk to them and defend our policy, which has been in place since March 2009. But I refuse to believe that such a problem exists. :The reason for the rule was that there needed to be a distinction where robots used the regnal number system (Rameses II being the only one not to spell it out). We need it to be clear that roman numerals are to be treated as regnal numbers so that they are immediately identifiable. Otherwise people start saying "Rameses Two" instead of "Rameses the Second", and that's a more important case of roboteer intention. :As for Tantrum, if the space is there, that's what they're called. The roman numeral/number isn't the issue. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 01:41, October 24, 2016 (UTC) ::Obviously these American teams can spell their robots however they like. I think you're exaggerating how much of a problem this would be, we're not renaming Thermidor 2 to Thermidor II here, it's just one line to state the team's stylistic preference. In the cases where both have been used, eg Firestorm, we make no mention of it. When robots like Tetanus and Behemoth literally have Roman Numerals written on them, then I take offense at our refusal to make even a one-line mention, it feels ignorant. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 02:01, October 24, 2016 (UTC) ::I'm not suggesting that we pretend its not there, but that's not the impression I've gotten from your request that we change the Style Guide. The above submission indicated to me that you wanted to give the team's stylisation precedence over our consistency rules. If that's all you wanted, I don't see the benefit of pointing it out because its interchangeable. If its on the picture, let the picture speak for itself. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 02:08, October 24, 2016 (UTC) :::You don't see it as beneficial because you see the numbers as interchangeable. A team who made the conscious decision to use Roman Numerals probably feels differently, so I choose to respect those decisions and point them out. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'Toast]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'Ultimatum']] 02:51, October 24, 2016 (UTC) ::::How do you know they aren't using Roman Numerals interchangeably with numbers? It's not like we've received complaints from Thermidor or Reactor for "ignoring" the robot's name. I feel that using numberals as opposed to numbers is no more notable than what font they used - it doesn't affect the robot's name, so why overrule a seven year old consistency rule for something that isn't particularly important? Toon Ganondorf (t ' 03:59, October 24, 2016 (UTC) :If it's mentioned on the show, it's worth mentioning here. I'll always insist we stick to naming the pages and making our first choice the numbers for sake of ease, but it's worth mentioning. CrashBash (talk) 05:53, October 24, 2016 (UTC) ::Okay well if we agree to making a small mention (i.e. the edit currently being put in and out) I think we can close any discussion of the Style Guide needing to change. Robots should always be called with numbers, but if they have Roman Numerals written prominently, it can warrant a brief mention. That's a compromise I'm happy to work with. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 06:01, October 24, 2016 (UTC) :The stats boards pretty much always used Roman Numerals, so it's not clear cut if every team made the choice or not. We can't rename every page to RN or numbers or whatever the team's preference was because there is no way of finding out the opinion of every team. That said, we could put the name in Roman Numerals in the "Other Names" section. For Example, with the Tantrum page, have it written as T2 (T II). Jimlaad43(talk) 07:54, October 24, 2016 (UTC) Discussion on the words "heat" and "episode" Hello everyone. Ever since the 2016 series rebooted, we've been rightfully careful about not letting nostalgia dictate what we name things. We took ages to rename 2016 series Series 8, we've stopped calling failures to reference classic series errors, and we've not called the episodes heats. The first is now resolved, the second is the correct decision, but the third has been bugging me for some time. I'd also like to revisit the way we do these decisions as to format. I don't believe majority rules should decide everything, if there's six reasons to change and only one to keep. I tend to be rather comprehensive with my case, and I'd like to afford the same opportunity as in the Beast debate last year. As such, I'm creating a table to insert reasons, and then the discussion can take place below. Please don't just add to the table unless its a fresh reason why. Do not rebut in the table itself. I'm also not going to make the case for "episode" because I don't believe in it, but I know Toast does so I'll leave it to him to articulate that side. I'm also not going to create a "vote" section because I want the discussion to be had first. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 10:40, October 9, 2017 (UTC) Ultimately, the word episode is just as generic as the word heat, but is less correct. I'm not saying we should necessarily change to heat a, heat b, heat c, but Heat 1, Heat 2 and Heat 3 are more accurate than what we do now. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 10:40, October 9, 2017 (UTC) :Reading through the programme info for the first episode of Series 10, the third paragraph begins with "The first five episodes are heats". I'm not sure if this is covered by the reasons already given, but still it is some more evidence. --Voyanuitoa (talk) 14:29, October 9, 2017 (UTC) ::In relation to TG's point about numerical/alphabetical listings, 'Heat 1', 'Heat 2' etc. are used in the Grand Final recaps for Series 1, 3, 4 and 5, and the battleboards for Series 6, so I agree that they would probably be more accurate for those particular series. However, I have also found that 'Heat A', 'Heat B' etc. are used for the battleboards for the heats of Series 3-5 and 7, as well as the recap in Series 7, Heat I and the second magazine's reports on Series 6. Overall, I consider both 'Heat A' and 'Heat 1' to be correct for Series 3-6 at least. ::With regards to the rebooted series, I would certainly keep the distinction between the qualifying episodes and the Grand Final, since the latter term HAS been used for titles on recap videos uploaded by the BBC's YouTube channel. However, my stance on 'heat' is a little less clear-cut; it is used at various points throughout Series 8-9 and in the Official Handbook, but the episodes considered to be heats are titled as 'episodes' by the BBC and on the Series 8 DVD, 'weeks' on the official website and even 'qualifiers' in the recent Passion Distribution brochure. At this point, it seems to me like all four terms are being used interchangeably; I'm honestly not sure which one is the ''definite term being used here. [[User:VulcansHowl|'''Vulcans]][[User talk:VulcansHowl|'Howl']] 16:39, October 9, 2017 (UTC) :::To further confuse it, the Robot Wars website calls the first 5 episodes "weeks". I would be happy to switch to Heats for consistencies sake, but I would also be happy to stick with Episode for the sake of convenience, as it's another thing that will take an age to properly implement. Jimlaad43(talk) 16:51, October 9, 2017 (UTC) ::::I don't want to get stuck up on canon, I'm after consistency. I'm also only discussing Series 8-10 specifically which are currently inconsistent with everything. There doesn't seem to be much discussion, so if there's nothing further I'll roll out a consistent format on Friday. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 08:35, October 11, 2017 (UTC) :::::For sure, I back changing to 'Heat', too. I'm much more inclined to go for numbers than letters for the reboot, but ultimately, as aforementioned, it's more key to decide which word to use first. Nweston8 (talk) 13:34, October 11, 2017 (UTC) ::::::I'm all for changing the titles to Heat as well. The continued use of 'heat final' is the clincher for me. After all, if there were to be side events in an episode, they'll be separated as they were for Series 3, 4 and 7 anyway. [[User:The R A Z 3R|'Ra'z'3'r']](talk) 13:49, October 11, 2017 (UTC) :I'd also like to bring something else up while we're at a discussion with heat naming. Series 3, 6 and 7 have Round 2 as the second round of the heat, but Series 4 and 5 have Semi-Finals. Personally, I think Round 2 is better, although we should keep Arena Semi-Finals for Series 1 and 2. Also, Series 3 doesn't have Heat Final, but rather Round 3? If we're going to talk about consistency, I think this should be addressed too. [[User:The R A Z 3R|'R'a'z'3'r']](talk) 13:49, October 11, 2017 (UTC) ::I'm happy to discuss a consistent format. Also noting there's a problem with "eliminator" and "round 1" sometimes. We'd need a proper rundown of exactly what uses what (including extreme tournaments). Toon Ganondorf (t ''' 22:52, October 12, 2017 (UTC) Qualifying Heat I've seen this phrase being used quite a lot on Robot pages denoting the heats formerly known as episodes for the Reboot Series'. Take Thor as an example. We have this line used: I think this phrase is clunky an awful, and propose we just remove it from everything and now make it "Heat" on its own. Jimlaad43(talk) 14:53, October 14, 2017 (UTC) :Going by The Official Handbook and the BBC's recent press releases, I am fine with this proposed change. [[User:VulcansHowl|'Vulcans']][[User talk:VulcansHowl|'Howl']] 14:57, October 14, 2017 (UTC) ::Also true. I did a few removals but good to see a consistent approach. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 21:51, October 14, 2017 (UTC) Numbers For which numbers should we use words, and which numbers should we use the actual numbers? (e.g. 1 to 10 --> one, two, three, four...) (e.g. 11 onwards --> 11, 12, 13, 14...). This is something I keep seeing being edited, and when I did my HPQ, my teacher told me that 1-10 were written as words, and anything else was written as the numbers. Adster1005 (talk) 20:33, October 15, 2019 (UTC) :When it's not part of a robot name, I can't think of any time where I wouldn't use the word in place of the number. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'TOAS]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'T']] 02:53, October 16, 2019 (UTC)